Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subrata Talukdar, Krishna Rao, JJ.
Sri Durga Enterprise And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
FMA No. 119 of 2022, IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Advocate, Ram Anand Agarwala, Advocate, Nibedita Pal, Advocate, Ramesh Dhara, Advocate, Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate, Sonam Roy, Advocate, Susobhan Sengupta, Advocate, Subir Pal, Advocate, Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Advocate, Soma Kar Ghosh, Advocate
The discretion of authorities in tagging ration cards based on relevant factors and the limitation of distributor rights to specific areas.
Headnote:
National Food Security Act, 2013 - Distributorship - 2005 Vacancy Notice - Tagging of Ration Cards - Memorandum of 2015 - Geographical Location and Convenience of Beneficiaries - Unequal Treatment - Res Judicata - Delay and Laches - Fair Price Shop Dealer Rights
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking Mandamus to tag all dealers of Bhagwanpur-II Block with the appellant's distributorship. The respondents had appointed the appellant as distributor for a location in 2009 and subsequently tagged 20 dealers with the appellant. The appellant contested unequal treatment in tagging ration cards and relied on previous court orders and judgments to support their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's distributorship was limited to a specific area and the authorities had the discretion to assess factors such as convenience of beneficiaries and proper functioning of the Public Distribution System when tagging ration cards. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no fundamental or statutory rights of the appellants had been infringed.
Issues: Unequal treatment in tagging ration cards, applicability of previous court orders and judgments, delay and laches in seeking redress.
Ratio Decidendi: The distributor's rights were limited to a specific area, and the authorities had discretion in tagging ration cards based on relevant factors. The court also considered the delay and laches in seeking redress.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WPa No. 8470 of 2021 dt. 19th august, 2021 wherein the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant had filed writ application praying for a Mandamus upon the respondents to tag all the dealears of Bhagwanpur-II Block with the petitioner's distributorship.
3. In the year 2005, the respondents have published vacancy notice for appointment of distributor and accordingly, the appellant no. 1 being the Partnership firm applied for the vacancy at Bhupatinagar within one kilometre from Block office of Bhagwanpur-II.
4. The appellant no. 1 was found eligible and the respondents have appointed the appellant as distributor for the location Bhupatinagar within one kilometer from Bhagwanpur-II Block Office for distribution of food grains and other commodities under Public Distribution System on 15.09.2009 and since then time to time the respondents have renewed the licence of the appellants.
5. The appellants are aggrieved with the number of ration cards which have been tagged with the private respondents. according to the appellants only 20 dealers having 1,54,1697 ration cards have been tagged with the appellants whereas the private respondent no. 4, alka Mondal has 37 dealers with 2,81,460 ration cards and additional seven dealers with 46,901 ration cards and the respondent no. 5, M/s Ramkrishna Enterprise, has 41 tagged dealers with 2,96,504 ration cards with two additional dealers with 14,862 ration cards.
6. The contention of the appellants that at least 2.5 lakh ration cards would have been tagged with the appellant but surprisingly only 1,54,197 ration cards have been tagged whereas more than the 2.5 lakh cards have been tagged with the private respondents.
7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Ld. Single Judge had directed the respondent no. 2 to file report in the form of affidavit by disclosing the reasons why the appellants were unequally treated in contrast to the two other distributors. In compliance of the order of the Ld. Single Judge, the respondent no. 2 had submitted report in the form of affidavit.
8. The licence was granted to the petitioner in the year 2009 in respect of Bhupatinagar under Purba Medinipur District and since then the appellants are continuing with the said business and the appellants have at no point of time raised any objection for tagging of more ration cards or raised any grievance for want of more ration cards.
9. National Food Security act, 2013 was promulgated with effect from 5th July, 2013 and as per the act it is the duty of the State Government to identify the eligible beneficiries under the act for the purpose of Targeted Public Distribution System and accordingly, eligible beneficiaries have been selected. The eligible beneficiaries are required to be tagged with the respective Fair Price Shops from where they can get their entitled quantity of food grains.
10. Tagging of the ration cards to the private respondents was done on the basis of the norms laid down under the National Food Security act, 2013 by considering the geographical location, convenience of the beneficiaries and the distance travelled by the beneficiaries.
11. after promulgation of the National Food Security act, 2013, the respondents have issued a Memorandum on 12th March, 2015 by cancelling the Memo dt.13.04.1999 and Memo dt. 04.02.2004.
12. The husband of the respondent no. 4 was initially appointed as distributor at Bajkul under Bhagwanpur-I Block and M.R. Distributorship of the husband of the respondent no. 4 was for enitre undivided Bhagwanpur Block and total 102 dealers were tagged with the said distributionship. In the year 2005, after the appointment of respondent no. 5 as Distributor, all dealers of Khejuri-I and Khejuri-II being 41 in numbers were de-tagged from the respondent no. 4 and tagged with respondent no. 5.
13. The appellants were appointed as Distributor at Bhupatinagar within
